Growing up in the desert taught me to look for beauty and wisdom in not-so-obvious people and places. These are my reflections as I try to live into that lesson in my family, in my church, in my politics and in the world.

Saturday, December 24, 2016

It's the "Why not?" that is the most infuriating, for within that phrase reside layers of racism, sexism, and white male entitlement. In this piece I will unpack that two-word question, engage Fort Worth Police Chief Joel Fitzgerald, and challenge Fort Worth Mayor Betsy Price to do the right thing.

The Event

On the afternoon of Wednesday, December 21, 2016, Jacqueline Craig. the mother of a 7-year-old boy, called Fort Worth police to report that a man had assaulted her son for littering, according to news reports. Craig and her son are African Americans. The neighbor accused of assaulting her son is a white man. (According to news reports, the neighbor has admitted grabbing the child by the neck.)And you already know how this story is going to turn out, don't you? Right. As I write this, nothing has happened to the white neighbor, but the mother and her two daughters were arrested. And after the arrest, the cops checked her for outstanding warrants - something not routinely done with arrests -- and discovered the mom has some outstanding traffic violations, information they quickly shared with the media. Of course they did.Here's how the event unfolded.

"Relatives said that a man in their southwest Fort Worth neighborhood had grabbed the boy by the neck in an attempt to get him to pick up the trash," reported the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. A relative of the mother videoed the encounter. See the video here.

"The video shows the officer talking to both the man accused of assaulting Craig’s son and then to Craig. Craig tells the man that he should have alerted her if he believed her son had littered and that he didn’t have the right to put his hands on her son.

“Why don’t you teach your son not to litter?” the officer asks Craig.

“He can’t prove to me that my son littered,” Craig responded. “But it doesn’t matter if he did or didn’t, it doesn’t give him the right to put his hands on him.”

“'Why not?” the officer responds."

Why not?!!!!!!! "Why not?" !!!!!!!!!!

Implicit in that "Why not?" is this question - Why can't your neighbor assault your child any time he wishes, for any reason?There are layers within layers of things wrong with this white officer of the law asking a black mother why another white man shouldn't be allowed to put his hands on her 7-year-old son without being held to account. Let's unpeel those layers.

Within that phrase sits hundreds of years of women of all colors being publicly shamed and blamed by white men when they dare to speak up and out about wrongs being done to them or their children, when they demand that the law defend them too. But most of all, within that patronizing privileged phrase sit hundreds of years of white men doing whatever they damn well pleased to the bodies of black children, black women, black men. Within that phrase sits a sense of entitlement and privilege fed and nurtured by centuries of patriarchy and white privilege that meant one white man automatically supported the other white man at the expense of an justifiably aggrieved mother.

That's why that white officer of the law barely dealt with the reason he had been called to the scene -- the suspected assault of a child - and instead turned the full weight of the authority vested in him by the city of Fort Worth on the black child's mother, focusing all his scorn and outrage on her.

And that black mother reacted exactly as any other mother -- and most fathers -- would react at being asked that outrageous question. She got angry. Which, if you watch the video, was pretty clearly the officer's intent in goading her.The news report continued, "The exchange immediately grows heated with Craig telling the officer that his question made her angry and the officer replying he would take her to jail if she continued yelling at him."

Got that? The officer patronizes her, treats her complaint as worthless, blatantly calls her a bad mother, goads her, threatens her, and then, when she reacts, arrests her. And then arrests her daughters because they get angry too. Ms. Craig did the right thing in calling the police. Hell, if some man had grabbed my child by the throat, I'm not sure I'd have called the police before confronting and assaulting him. And if I had, I suspect I still wouldn't be in jail, because I'm white and my child is white.

Rude?

Fort Worth city officials say they are "disturbed and outraged" at the video, and they have acknowledged the office acted "inappropriately," and agree that investigating the possible assault of the child should have been the officer’s priority when he arrived at the scene.But Fort Worth Police Chief Joel Fitzgerald (a black man), speaking at a news conference at City Hall on Friday afternoon, "acknowledged that the officer acted rude but said, 'I can’t call [the incident] racism.

"'What I can say is that I noticed in the video that the officer was rude,” Fitzgerald said. “And there is a difference between rude and racist.”

Chief, you are right. This officer's behavior WAS rude, but that rudeness was caused by and rooted in racism and sexism. And I think you know it. Just as it's racism that is forcing you to be so measured and prudent, making you so carefully avoid the slightest appearance of being the dreaded "angry black man."

I get it -- but I hate it.

Because if we don't name it, we can't change it.

Mayor, make it right

So I am calling on Mayor Betsy Price to use her status as an elected official and her white privilege to name it. Have your police chief's back and say what he can't -- that this officer's behavior was racist and sexist and that it will not be tolerated in Fort Worth.

Then take appropriate action to back that statement up. Fire the officer.

And then apologize to Ms. Craig, her daughters, and most of all, her 7-year-old son.

If you believe it when you say Fort Worth is better than this, prove it.

Thursday, December 01, 2016

On this World AIDS Day, I am thinking about the term "living with AIDS." I rejoice at the medical advances that make that possible, but not without grieving for the multitudes who didn't make it over that particular line in history.

I am remembering the late 1980s when my husband was, for a time, the only Episcopal priest in Fort Worth who would conduct funerals for AIDS patients. How many funerals did we attend of young men whose families refused to come to the hospital to see them as they were dying, much less to their funerals?

Every Christmas I am reminded of Tom, who left me his amazing fabulous Christmas decorations and memories of so many friendly arguments over meals. If you think our Christmas decorations are just a teeny bit over the top, thank sweet stubborn talented Tom.

I am remembering the times parts of the Quilt came to Fort Worth and we stood for tear-stained hours in the Will Rogers Exhibit Hall reading aloud one by one the names on those quilts, tears eventually making it hard to see the names.

I am remembering my husband firmly explaining to a father who showed up just after we finished burying the ashes of his son in the church garden that no, he could not have the keys to his son's house - a house whose address the father didn't even know, having disowned his son years before. That house was willed to his son's partner, who had cared for him in the much too short time from diagnosis to death, and who now faced his own death from AIDS. I thought my oh-so-gentle husband was going to punch the man out when he tried to bully the partner into giving him the house keys.

I am remembering the many mothers who my husband persuaded to come see their dying children. They would sidle into the hospital rooms, gasp at the sight of their sons, and then, well, they either left weeping or they fell to their knees by the beds, weeping. Some of those who left came back when they had recovered from the shock. Some never did come back. Most made us promise to never tell their husbands -- the fathers of these men -- that they had come to the hospital.

But there was one father who did come -- to tell his son he was damned to hell. He managed to get most of that sentence out before we hustled him out of the room and called hospital security.

I remember the lesbians who cared tenderly for so many sick gay men -- especially men whose partners had already died, men who had no one else to care for them. This was at a time when gay men barely acknowledged common cause with lesbian women, indeed sometimes were hostile to the women. That gap was bridged with the loving care of countless women and the gratitude of way too many dying men.

I remember hearing a woman tell of persuading her priest to bury her son, who had died of AIDS, only to have the priest come up to this grieving mother at the funeral reception and say, "Well, I did my best, but I have to tell you that your son is burning in hell."

So, no, I have no patience with anti-gay crap or with those who vote for people who espouse such views. I especially have no patience with those who use the Bible and God to hammer LGBT folk. In The Episcopal Church, when a baby -- or anyone else -- is baptized, the bishop or priest dabs his or her thumb in blessed oil and makes the sign of the Cross on the person's forehead, saying, "You are sealed as Christ's own forever." There is no asterisk, no conditions are put on that baptism. As Bishop Barbara Harris famously proclaimed, "There are no half-assed baptisms!"

I believe we are all -- straight, LGBTQ, black, white, brown, Indigenous, male, female, gender non-conforming -- ALL OF US named or unnamed are God's own, created in God's image, beloved children of a loving God.

And it will be in the name of those who didn't get to "live with AIDS" that I will stand my ground with that statement for however many time it's needed in the next four years. I hope you will join me.

Monday, July 11, 2016

A Sermon preached at St. Michael and All Angels’ Church, Cuernavaca, Morelos, 10 July 2016,Eighth Sunday after Pentecost

by the Rev. Bruce Coggin

Boy! Today’s collect is really a one-size-fits-all unit, isn’t it? Do you remember what you said Amen to a few minutes ago? We asked God to hear us when we pray, to help us know and understand what we ought to do, and then for the grace and power to do it. What else do we need? God, show us what you want us to do and give us the power to do it. Isn’t that a prayer anybody in any religion could say Amen to? Though I might want to add a word. My friend Katie Sherrod—she’s the wife of Fr. Pool who was rector here years ago—wrote a book about the gutsy women who helped build Fort Worth. She called it Grace & Gumption. You look gumption up and you get synonyms like initiative, courage, resourcefulness, guts. I like that because it takes us beyond knowing and believing and accepting God’s purpose for us and on down the road to doing something about it. It’s a prayer we should always have at the center of our lives in God, because . . . y’know? . . . at times it’s pretty hard to figure out what’s going on, much less how we should act, and I don’t know about you, but for me this past week has been a real doozy. If you’ve been watching the news, you know what I mean. I need help figuring out how to behave in the face of events today, and I expect living that out will require considerable gumption.

Let’s look at the lessons. We’ve been following the Old Testament prophets the past few weeks, and we’ve dealt with Elijah and Elisha, a couple of pretty spooky guys, dangerous at times, always elusive and shifty, either chopping up livestock and Baal prophets or running for their lives. Today we meet a new kind of prophet, Amos, and he wrote his inspirations down. We have his word for it, not a second hand account, and that’s new. (Let me stop here and say something about Old Testament prophets and prophecy per se. Prophets are not crystal ball gazers who fall into a trance and predict the future. Rather they are men who see the present so intensely and perceptively that the shape of the future becomes apparent. They look at current events and say, “You keep this kind of madness up, and this is what’s going to come of it.” It’s what any of us can do and in fact do a lot of the time; but the Old Testament prophets did it in circumstances which made it mortally dangerous. They spoke truth to the power structure of their time; it got them all killed.) So back to Amos. Amos lived in what looked like good times. Both the north (Israel) and the south (Judah) were at peace, prosperous, lots of trade, plenty of money floating around. In Israel King Jeroboam II was fat and happy and in cahoots with the seriously corrupt religious establishment. Right. Any time you see the state and the church getting chummy, skeet for the woodshed, run for the hills, the dam has bust. A theocracy is about the most dangerous thing going, because usually it means that the state has the church bought and sold. Whatever the state does is God’s will. After all, God has been on the side of every army that ever went to war, which must have been particularly poignant in the American Revolution in places like Virginia where both armies were Anglican! And that was the situation Amos lived in. The state tolerated a good bit of non-Yahweh religion, “the high places of Isaac,” Baal shrines; and the church winked while the rich squeezed the poor to death. Bad stuff. And you notice also that when the king tells him to go prophesy somewhere else, he right quick distances himself from that: “I’m not a prophet, not part of that crowd. I’m a farmer.” (I learned, by the way, something about that “dresser of sycamore trees” bit. Evidently there’s a sycamore in that part of the world that bears figs. Did anybody know that? I didn’t.) Well anyhoo, Amos’ world is going to Hell by the short road, and he has the gumption to call it out—social injustice, religious hypocrisy, moral turpitude, all of it. “God,” says Amos, “is going to drop a plumb line on Israel and straighten it out, just like we use a plumb line to build a straight wall. You are acting like Hell, and it’s going to be Hell to pay.”

Well, I’ve got to ask, does that sound anything like today? Just look around us. It’s not all in the U.S. England just took a vote to do something pretty far-reaching, and now they’re not at all sure they’re happy about it, everybody running for cover. And in the rest of Europe, people are choosing up sides. Germany’s getting antsy about immigrants, France is one step away from a pogrom. In the United States, we see police shooting black men one day and a black man shooting police the next, and leaders of both sides of the argument are talking right past each other. One side says we have to have stronger gun laws; the other side says we have to have stricter law enforcement; the people in the middle don’t know which way to turn. It’s all through what we call Western Culture, Europe and the Americas, and Mexico is by no means exempt. You know the old saying, Ay México, tan lejos de diós y tan cerca a los Estados Unidos! What happens in the país vecino al norte is going to wash over into Mexico. And vice versa. We’re all in the same tub, and it’s a slop bucket. And how do our leaders respond? I get sick of hearing people say, “Well, moments like this bring us together.” Really? I don’t see that. I see us being shredded. And is that the only way we can be brought together, in fear and hatred of an enemy? Is that the best we have? I want to yell when somebody asks for “a moment of silence.” A moment of silence indeed. What we need is forty days of fasting and prayer, though I don’t think anybody will call for that. Was it ever any better? Somehow I kind of think so. When I was a kid, things seemed more civil. Not everybody was an enemy. My Grandmother Yeager’s highest praise was to call us good citizens. But somewhere along the line, about fifty years ago or so I remember out of almost nowhere a torrent of the literature of self-affirmation flooding the bookstores, all about how wonderful we all are, how we can do anything we want (a dangerous lie), how we must assert ourselves. Lord, I believe in giving children a good self-image and having one for ourselves, but not that bunch of self-absorption. I remember when I came back to Texas after ten years in Mexico, when I watched television with my mother all I saw were ads for drugs. “Does your eyelid twitch sometimes. You may have Twitchy Eyelid Syndrome. TES! Ask your doctor if you’re ready for Lidstill.” And that’s gotten worse. Or ads about managing wealth, that in a country where about half the population lives right at the poverty line. Drugs and money. And today it’s all about “getting the service you deserve,” “taking control,” “earning points or miles or whatever.” It’s sickening. And the saddest part is, we swill it all up like hogs at a trough. When do we hear about giving and caring for each other? Every now and then somebody talks about “giving back,” but that’s usually the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table. Thank God for David Brooks. I don’t know how many of you know him. He’s a syndicated columnist, appears in the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. He’s Jewish, but I think if you scratch him you find a man on the verge of conversion to Christianity, quotes St. John and other Christian writers all the time. The other day he did an article on altruism, behavior that helps others, benefits others with no expectation of reward. He reported studies showing that small children, two-year-olds say, who see someone drop a clothes pin will automatically pick it up and try to give it back. Natural response. Help others. But if they are rewarded, the next time that happens, they’ll be less apt to help, because they’ve learned to ask What’s in it for me? His point was that altruism seems to be part of our nature until we teach ourselves to be ulterior. I’ve said often about myself, there’s not an altruistic bone in my body; I’m the most ulterior person I know. Where did I learn that? Where do we all learn to expect the worst from ourselves? Well, that’s enough harangue, but I think it’s pretty clear we are in trouble, serious trouble, and life is about to . . . When my Grandmother Yeager was a child, she said she and her sibs liked to shuck corn by pulling it through a knothole in a plank, just skins the husk right off. Well, life is about to jerk us through a knothole. Where is help? Dear God, show us what to do!

What blessèd irony that today’s gospel is Luke’s parable of the Good Samaritan, an epiphanic coincidence. What’s the antidote to all that poison we just choked on? Take care of each other. Simple as that. Stop seeing each other as adversaries or as prey but rather as partners, brothers and sisters, neighbors. You know the story by heart. A pesky lawyer is chopping logic with Jesus, always a losing proposition, asks who is in fact his neighbor. Then comes the story. A fellow falls among thieves on the road, gets knocked in the head, robbed, thrown in the barrow ditch, and left for dead. Along comes a priest on his way to church, and God knows he doesn’t want to get involved and messed up and impure, so he passes by on the other side. Next a Levite, the reader and acolyte, same story, he passes by on the other side. And then a low down, good for nothin’, heretical, Not One Of Us Samaritan, comes by and lo and behold goes right over to the bloody wretch, gives him First Aid, puts him in the back of his CRV, drives him to the Holiday Inn, checks him in, leaves his American Express card at the desk, says he’ll pick and the tab up next time he comes that way. Jesus then extorts the right answer from his questioner, and says, “Go and do thou likewise.” How plain can it be? And yet how do we in fact usually treat each other? I’ve told you this story before, but it fits. One Sunday morning at home I was on my way to Trinity Church to say Mass, a cold morning, windy, spitting rain. I was driving across a long bridge over the Trinity River and spotted an old man, older than me, shuffling along under a backpack about the size of my car, having a hard time in the wind. What should I have done? Yes, pull over, ask if I could give him a lift anywhere. But no, this priest had places to go and things to do, and I passed by on the other side. I know all the reasons why that was the sensible thing to do, and I’m not going to commit hara kiri over it; but it is so typical of the way we react to people in distress, don’t want to get involved, just slither by on the other side. It’s in our DNA somehow, and we’re not going to improve much. But the point is blindingly clear, and without further elaboration, I commend the matter to your conscience. We all need to re-program.

Mercy, where’s the sweet gospel this morning? Let’s turn to Paul and today’s lesson from Colossians. You’ve heard me say that reading Paul is often like listening to Stravinsky, everybody against everybody, especially when he’s trying to explain things. Well, not this morning. How many of you remember Amadeus? Do you remember scene when Salieri, Mozart’s rival, finds a manuscript of a composition not yet performed, just on paper in Mozart’s own hand? He imagines the music, and the most beatific look comes over his face. He can hardly speak. He chokes out, “It was like hearing the voice of God.” Well, that’s what the lesson sounds like this morning, the voice of God speaking love to his children. “I have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus . . . the faith of the gospel you have heard . . . how it and you are bearing fruit . . . how you understand my grace . . . I want you filled with knowledge of my will in wisdom and understanding . . . leading lives worthy of me, bearing fruit in good works . . . being strong so you can live through anything . . . in the Kingdom of my Son who has given you forgiveness for all your sins.” Wow. That’s the way God sees his children, the way God sees us here this morning, his children gathered to learn from him what he gives us and what he hopes for us, as well as the grace and strength and gumption to live out his expectation that we live up to Jesus’ teaching in that parable with each other and with every other battered soul our Father in Heaven puts across our path. You see, God believes in us. It’s up to us to see that, believe it, and live accordingly. What could be sweeter than that?

I see three lessons for us this morning. First, we are in trouble. Oh, we’ve always been in trouble, but today, right now, the walls seem to be closing in. How are we to act as baptized people? I heard someone say this week, “Oh, we live in paradise here in Cuernavaca. None of this touches me. I just go inside and close the door, and it all goes away.” That’s a delusion. Opting out is not an option, not for me anyway. This is the nest we’ve made for ourselves, and it’s ours to clean up. I can’t do it all, to be sure, but nobody but I can do my part, so I’m resolved to try. I hope you will too. Second, the solution is right in front of us: take care of each other. I can’t take care of every battered soul, but I can at least offer a lift to those I find on the same bridge with me. I hope you will too. Third, I know what God wants of me. It’s in today’s gospel lesson. I just need somehow to open up so God can give me the gumption to go and do likewise. I hope you will too.

Wednesday, June 08, 2016

“What would happen if one woman told the truth about her life?The world would split open."― Muriel Rukeyser-----------I am voting for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. She is a woman who is arguably the best qualified candidate president this nation has seen in decades.

But most of all, she has skin the game in a way no male possibly can.

She was born 11 months after I was, which means she is a woman who has lived long enough to have endured:

having her body, her clothes, her hair, her very being scrutinized and commented on by an passing male and by many women. This process began shortly after her birth, because any female old enough to walk is required to "be pretty".

having her church tell her that by being a woman, she suffers from the sin of Eve, and that's why God considers her less than a male child.

seeing few to no female role models in the news, on the radio. in her school books, on TV, or anywhere in the culture in which she lived.

watching the birth of the Civil Rights Movement, which began the process of her coming to understand that as a white woman, no matter how restricted her life might be, it was immensely less restricted than the lives of African American, Hispanic, and other women of color.

being told by magazines, teachers, the church, and probably some members of her own family not to be "too smart" or it would make her less attractive to men.

being told the most important thing she could do was to be attractive to men.

becoming of child-bearing age prior to the birth control pill being widely available to women. This means she has a visceral knowledge no male can have of the immense importance of safe, affordable, readily available contraception. She understands that for women to be in control of their reproductive lives is not only a health issue but an economic issue.

knowing that should she become pregnant, having a safe abortion would mean finding the money to travel to another country where it was legal. Otherwise, the only option was a dangerous back-alley abortion or a self-induced abortion.

knowing that the State at the local, state, and national level feels entitled to take control of her body, decreeing what she can put into it and what she could take out of it. She knows what it feels like to live without bodily autonomy.

being encouraged to go to college so she would "have something to fall back on" in case her husband died (and of COURSE she would get married) and she was forced to support herself and their children (and of COURSE she would have children).

being told by the State that she is not a legal human being, that only her husband is.

being considered a child under the law, no matter what her age, and denied the right to serve on juries or make legal decisions. Her father, brother, or even her son would be required to sign contracts for her to have credit, buy a house, start a business, or any of a thousand actions any male felt entitled to attempt.

looking for a job in the classified sections of newspapers, only to find jobs listed as "Jobs for Men" and "Jobs for Women", and realizing all the professional openings were in the male-only section.

having state law decree that she could not apply for any job that required her to work nights, lift weights over 25 pounds, travel overnight, or drive a vehicle, telling her it was all for her protection.

being pressured to take her husband's last name to prove he really had control of her, even though it has never been necessary by law, only custom.

having state law decree that she could not choose how to give birth, mandating that all births take place in hospitals and be attended by a physician. No midwives allowed.

being told that she is "taking a job away from a man" when she enters a male-dominated field.

being paid less than men for the same job.

And this is only the beginning of what Hillary Clinton brings to her candidacy.

So when I say I am voting for Hillary because she is a woman, this is why.

"I will choosewhat enters me,what becomes flesh of my flesh,Without choice,no politics, no ethics lives.I am not your cornfield,not your uranium mine,not your calf for fattening,not your cow for milking.You may not use me as a factory.Priests and legislatorsdo not hold my sharesin my womb or my mind.This is my body.If I give it to you I want it back.My life is a non-negotiable demand."Marge Piercy

Friday, April 01, 2016

Please spare me all the conservative outrage over Donald Trump's statement that, if abortion was banned -- and he said it should be -- women should be punished for having abortions.

Oh, NO, the anti-abortion crowd shouted, we NEVER said a woman should be punished, just the providers. The woman is a VICTIM.

What total bullhockey. What Trump did was what his supporters claim to love -- he said out loud what everyone in the anti-abortion movement thinks. And that was his crime. He violated the "political correctness" smokescreen the anti-abortion movement has piled up around itself to prevent people from noticing that the inevitable end point of all their efforts is jailing women for having abortions. Hell, they are already jailing women for having miscarriages.

Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times didn'tmiss the real reason for the anti-abortion folks' panic at what Trump said: ". . .the episode does highlight two basic problems for the anti-abortion movement.

"First, as long as the focus is on the fetus or on the claim of 'protecting women,' many in the public are sympathetic to the anti-abortion view. The moment the focus shifts to criminalizing women, sympathy shifts."

And there's a reason the anti-abortion crowd doesn't want the American people to think about criminalizing women. It's their Holy Grail, the personhood bill. Which criminalizes women.

These are the bills that declare a fertilized egg a human being, with all the legal protections afforded a human being after birth. These bills by default declare every woman of childbearing age a potential criminal, because women often lose pregnancies before they've even realized they are pregnant. Women's bodies shed fertilized eggs for all sorts of reasons that doctors know about. The woman may only experience a heavier than usual period, never knowing she was pregnant. Miscarriages happen early in pregnancy all the time. These laws will mean that every woman who miscarriages will be subject to arrest as a suspected murderer.

American people don't like the idea of young women being handcuffed and jailed for seeking to end a pregnancy, much less for having a miscarriage (even though that is already happening, mostly to poor women of color). And the last thing the anti-abortion folks want is graphic evidence of their very real utter and complete disdain for women as anything other than incubating vessels for fetuses. But even as they uttered their "outrage" and even as Trump retreated, that disdain for women was unmistakable.

Many anti-abortion activists claimed that what Trump said flies in the face of what the pro-life movement is about. For them, they claim, it’s not about punishing women, but about helping them and promoting the sanctity of life. Sarah Torre of the Heritage Foundation tweeted:

Every woman and child has dignity and worth. Pro-life movement offers support, hope, healing to those caught in a culture that devalues life

In walking back his statement, Trump said, "If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman," Trump said. "The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed -- like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions."

Ted Cruz said, "On the important issue of the sanctity of life, what’s far too often neglected is that being pro-life is not simply about the unborn child; it’s also about the mother – and creating a culture that respects her and embraces life. Of course we should’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world.”

Oh, please. There's enough mendacity and misogyny mixed up in these reactions to make one puke.

Point One:

The entire anti-abortion movement is all about punishing women:

for having sex

for daring to assert autonomy over our own bodies

for taking control of our own medical decisions

for taking control of our reproductive decisions

Here is just one example of how their laws to "protect" women punish them.

And when you make it impossible to get a safe, legal abortion, women will find other, more dangerous, options. But the anti-abortion folks do not care. These women should have thought about all this before they had sex, the lying whores.

As the story points out, these laws are being written by anti-abortion lobbyists, nearly all male, and then passed practically verbatim.

"Texas Alliance for Life is very involved in crafting the legislation that the legislature considers," said Joe Pojman, the anti-abortion group's executive director. When it comes to several of Texas's anti-abortion laws, "what passed is almost verbatim what we drafted."

"Lt. Gov. Dewhurst put the major legislative leaders and the major pro-life groups in a room and asked us what the bill should contain," Pojman said. "He took the favorite components of the major groups and the major legislators and put them together. I compare it to a sandwich of cold cuts: Each of us had a favorite slice, and each of us had incentive to support the bill."

Point Two:

When they talk about women being "victims," what they are saying is that women are too stupid and uninformed to make these decisions. We are such brainless feckless creatures -- totally at the mercy of our hormones, you know -- that we cannot be trusted with such important decisions about our own lives.

When they talk about women and the "incredible gift they have to bring life into the world.” what they mean is that it's scary as hell that women can bleed and not die, that women might not need a man for anything except his sperm, and that any woman might dare to think her body is her own to use as she sees fit.

When they talk about every woman and child having "dignity and worth," they mean only certain women and children and only under certain conditions -- white middle class and upper class women and children who look and think like them and who are under the control of a husband and father. Uppity women need not apply. They are just getting what they deserve.

Poor women and children who use food stamps and otherwise take government "handouts" are on their own. Women of color, no matter their income or class, are on their own, as are their children, who are probably baby criminals anyway.

Migrant women and their children? What are you smoking? We don't even want to give them birth certificates when they do carry their babies to term.

“We’ve lowered the ozone standard close to the point that I’m convinced we’re not getting much, if any, benefit healthwise from [further] lowering the ozone standard,” TCEQ Chairman Bryan Shaw told a panel of legislators convened to discuss the impact federal environmental regulations might have on the Texas economy.

From the story: "Shaw’s comments run contrary to decades of scientific research, but generally reflect Texas GOP lawmakers’ position against increased regulations targeting air pollutants. After the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced states would need to reduce ozone levels from 75 to 70 parts per billion last year, Texassued the agency, claiming the rule was 'arbitrary,' 'capricious' and 'an abuse of discretion.' In legal filings, the state also argued that the EPA had disregarded evidence that indicated lowering ozone levels was 'unnecessary to protect human health.'https://www.texasobserver.org/tceq-smog-ozone-reduction-shaw/

Post-fetal human beings, especially children, in the care of the State should be safe. Too bad for them.

Post-fetal children are entitled to a decent education. Too bad for them.

Texas loves having idiots on its State Board of Education. From the story: "More than 100,000 East Texas Republicans from College Station to Paris voted in March to give authority over Texas’ public school curriculum to Mary Lou Bruner, a retired teacher who has said that President Obama was once a prostitute and blamed school shootingson the teaching of evolution. Bruner has suggested that Democratic Party leaders killed JFK, that global warming is a 'hoax,' and that the United States should 'ban Islam and stop all immigration.'

"Bruner’s campaign has already returned the State Board of Education to its familiar place, up on a tee for easy jokes at Texas’ expense, and should she win her runoff election in May — which is likely — there it will stay for at least four more years."

“Our public schools will be no better off than they are today even as billions of available dollars were left untouched,' said Senate Democratic leader Kirk Watson of Austin, referring to funds that were left on the table by lawmakers.

"Texas has moved up several spots in spending per pupil in the U.S. thanks to rising property values and more state funding, but its ranking in the bottom third of states in a study earlier this year still undercuts its position in the school finance case.

From the story: "In Texas, 300 to 500 pregnant women are booked into county jails each month, and dozens gave birth while in custody last year. Women report not getting enough food. They say the notoriously uncomfortable sleeping mats cause back pain. And they feel mistreated and disrespected by guards. One woman in a Travis County lockup last year said she was shackled to her hospital bed while delivering her baby."

And I could go on and on and on with examples of how Texas' "culture of life" is a crock of cow patties for anyone who is not white, male, or a fetus.

So please. At least have the integrity to be honest about your agenda of controlling women's bodies, and when that fails, about your deep seated desire to punish uppity women.

Because the feminists of the sixties were right. This is all about controlling women. If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

Thursday, February 18, 2016

The Rev. Dr. Barbara Schlachter died peacefully at her home on February 16, 2016. She was a founder of the Episcopal Women's Caucus and a woman of valor who played key roles in advancing the role of women -- lay and ordained -- in The Episcopal Church. More people owe her a huge debt than will ever realize it. I count myself among them.

In the Fall of 2003, Barbara was chosen by the Episcopal Women's Caucus to come to the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth as the first Angel in their Angel Project. Her job was to be a pastoral presence as a priest who is a woman, to incarnate the idea of women's ordination in a diocese whose leadership adamantly opposed it. She was the perfect choice. Her calm centered presence was balm to hurting souls. She brought us the best gift of all, the bread of hope in the knowledge that we had not been forgotten by the wider church.

Barbara stayed with Gayland and me at our home, and so we were privileged to spend a lot of time with her, over breakfast, strolling the garden, playing with our dogs, and with our first grandchild, Curran, who we kept every day while his parents were working. We were glad we were able to provide her with a comfortable safe space while she was here. But we are clear that we received much more from her during that visit than she did from us.

After her visit, she reported on her experience in RUACH, the Caucus' publication. That report is reproduced below. Also in that issue were reports from folks about their encounters with her. They speak to the power of her ministry. Some of those are reproduced below as well.

She was a gift to The Episcopal Church, but particularly a gift to Episcopalians in this diocese. We are bereft.

-----

Encounters with an Angel

RUACH, Winter 2003

I met Barbara Schlachter on two occasions --both were meetings
of our Book Club composed of about 15 Trinity women. She was the stranger who
fit right in immediately. Her insights into our discussions were both helpful
and interesting.

As a relative newcomer to the Diocese of Fort Worth and having
come from the Diocese of Virginia, I found it reassuring tosee the response of
our small group to a woman priest. What was her background? How long would she
be here? What were her reactions to Fort Worth? etc. They were not only
interested but also eager to hear of her experiences. Her visit was not only
helpful, it certainly made me feel connected once again to the larger church. I
also had the pleasure of hearing her inspiring homily. I hop ethat many others
at Trinity came away feeling the pride of hearing and seemg this gifted woman
share her knowledge and background with us.

Sue Pratt,

Trinity, Fort Worth

For the first time within this church setting, I felt I was standing in the center rather than on the periphery

For the first time within this church setting, I felt I was
standing in the center rather than on the periphery ---welcomed rather than simply
tolerated. Speaking to the Rev. Schlachter without fear of reprisal or judgment- to
not have to explain certain feelings – to know that she recognized my
heart-- that was the crux of it. She simply understood. This gift I received - for
I do feel it to be a gift - was
precious. I do thank Barbara and all those who made it possible for her to
visit the Diocese of Fort Worth. Both have given me hope that one day “angels” will not have to be imported.

B.G. Click

Christ the King Episcopal Church, Fort Worth

In the Rev. Dr. Barbara Schlachter I met an angel, a messenger
who brought good tidings to those of us in Ft. Worth who hunger and thirst for
the full ministry of women and men. And the message she brought in a firm,
loving, humorous, challenging, articulate,
moving, and inspiring way is that we are all God's people and that women
can minister o us in ways that are different from the ways of men. Having her
in our presence was (and continues to be) a blessing for which we are all
grateful to the Episcopal Women’s Caucus. Her day of reflection for women was
among the spiritual highlights of my life, and the people coming for communion
after her sermon reflected hope and joy and a sense of connection.

“I want to tell you that you are the best argument for the ordination of women that I have ever seen.”

One of our male parishioners said to her after her sermon and
during her forum presentation, “I want to tell you that you are the best
argument for the ordination of women that I have ever seen.” That statement, I
believe, represents exactly what the EWC hoped for in developing the Angel
Project: the incarnational presence of an “angel” has allowed people of faith
to experience the ministry of women in a way presently not allowed in our
diocese.

Priscilla Tate

Trinity Episcopal Church, Fort Worth

Barbara’s visit was a powerful message. The National church
had not, after all, forgotten about us here in Fort Worth. They had not written us off, or assumed that
all was well. Barbara’s visit communicated hope that there were possible
solutions to reunite us with the Canons of the National Episcopal Church. My
family sends their deepest thanks to the Episcopal Women’s Caucus for designing
and implementing the Angel Project, and for sending Barbara Schlachter to Fort
Worth. It is our hopw that you will continue this and other projects which seek
to unite us with the larger church.

Ruth Barnhouse Story

This was a very personal and comforting experience. She brought with her the perspective of the experiences of other dioceses of the National Church and provided understanding and hope for those present who expressed frustration about our concerns. She provided the group with suggestions for mutual support and hope about how our diocese might in the future rejoin the mainstream of the National Church.

We have been blessed to have had such an outstanding and spiritual person as our visitor. We are indebted to those who generously provided the support for her visit.

Sylvia and Tim Stevens

St. Christopher, Fort Worth

While it is probably true that several of the Episcopal churches in the diocese strongly resisted her outreach to them, they were the ones to miss a golden opportunity. The ones of us who did allow her to minister to us are far richer for the experience. After she spoke to the congregation at our Adult Forum, I felt that she really was an Angel sent to help open ourselves to a larger faith experience.

Charles Weidler

Trinity, Fort Worth

Finally, the best way that I can express her impact on our worship is this: the Sunday after she preached and worshiped with us, there was an empty place where she had been.

I met Rev. Schlacter at our church, as she was invited to take part in several parish functions. I found her to be fair spoken, gentle and wise, even in the midst of a diocese about which, I'm sure, she could have found much to say of a corrosive nature. In fact, even when invited to be critical of this diocese and its bishop by those who are convinced of the validity of women's orders, she responded in a manner that was even, fair, and caring.

Her children's homily at our church was very well done, and demonstrated an empathy with our kids that our priest said he hopes to achieve for himself. Her sermon was more existential than I'm used to, but it did make me think, rather than doing the thinking for me. That kind of preaching takes a lot of faith.

Finally, the best way that I can express her impact on our worship is this: the Sunday after she preached and worshiped with us, there was an empty place where she had been.

Anonymous

From
RUACH

Winter,
2003

FIFTY-NINE
HOLY DAYS IN FORT WORTH

by
The Rev. Dr. Barbara Schlachter

The Episcopal Women's Caucus' first angel reports on her
experience in the Diocese of Fort Worth and the welcome she found there.

This angel has flown home after fifty-nine days in the
Diocese of Fort Worth. I arrived on St. Michael's and All Angels (transferred)
and left on the Feast of Christ the King. Added to the three days I spent there
earlier in September, it was a total of fifty-nine days, the canonically-allowed
length of time a priest may function in a diocese other than her own without
that bishop's permission.

The Rt. Rev. Jack Iker would not have given me permission
because his position on the ordination of women to the priesthood is the reason
I was there in the first place. Fort Worth is one of three dioceses that, more
than 25 years since the canon on ordination was changed, still do not ordain
women to the priesthood. The people who live there are divided between those who
support Bishop Iker's position, and those who want to have ordained women
serving in the diocese and to experience being part of the rest of the Episcopal
Church.

It was to these latter, loyal people that I was sent. Some of
them are members of the Episcopal Women's Caucus, and it was their request to
the National Episcopal Women's Caucus that brought me there. I felt called to
this ministry of pastoral presence. I had recently moved to Iowa from Southern
Ohio and was between positions, so I had the time available. More importantly, I
had been through a similar time in my life thirty years before when I helped
found the Episcopal Women's Caucus. I spent three and a half years as a deacon
going to any parish that would invite me to show them that a woman could wear a
clerical collar and serve as well as a man.

In Fort Worth I felt in many ways that I was stepping back in
time. Not only is the ordination of women a non-resolved issue in Fort Worth,
but also inclusive language has far to go. In some services I felt I was at a
mid-l950s liturgy. Women there are supposed to believe that they are included
in the word "man"—as long as they aren't called to priesthood, that
is.

The title for my article comes from an e-mail that one of the
clergy opposed to the ordination of women sent to a public Internet site. He
said that the Rev. Barbara Schlachter was 'hanging out" around the Diocese
of Fort Worth and wasn't it nice that the Episcopal Women's Caucus had nothing
better to do with its money than provide me with a vacation in Texas.

Well, one of the things I most admire about Jesus' ministry was
his ability to hang out and be available to people. I took that statement as a
compliment. And if this clergyman had been English, he would have used the word
"holiday" instead of vacation. That of course, comes from Holy Day.

And indeed, I did have fifty-nine Holy Days in Fort Worth. It
was, however, not a vacation. The last time I checked under the rubrics of
clergy wellness: preaching, teaching, counseling, planning liturgies, celebrating
house Eucharists, encouraging the faithful and being generally available to all
who wished to spend time with me individually or in small groups, is not
considered vacation.

When I went for my three day initial "plunge" in
early September, I returned amazed at the depth of the pain and anger I heard
from both clergy and laity. I wondered if indeed I could offer healing and
encouragement in the face of such despair. I wondered if I would in fact face
hostility from those opposed. I asked for prayer from Caucus members and
friends, and the parish where my husband is rector commissioned me for this
ministry and joined in the prayers for me.

I believe in the power of prayer! I never experienced any
hostility even from those who were opposed to the ordination of women, and I
was warmly greeted and received by people wherever I went. There was a hunger
and a thirst to be part of something beyond their diocese that touched me
deeply. There was a desire for the wholeness that the rest of the church has
found m the ministry of ordained women. We lived that as fully as we could for
those fifty-nine days.

There were a number of clergy in the diocese who were quite
supportive of my being there and wished things were different so that they
could have women colleagues. Even the most supportive, however, realized that
an invitation to me to preach or celebrate constituted a risk with their
bishop. My presence was a mirror for them-how far were they willing to go support
something they believed in? I do not judge any of them. It is an isolating
place for clergy who do not believe as the bishop believes. In fact, it is a
dangerous place. More than one clergy person has been removed from his position
because he was too outspoken, others have been forced out by vestries because
the bishop chose not to support them.

I did celebrate the Eucharist once and con-celebrated another
time in an Episcopal church I preached in two different parishes, and there was
a great deal of enthusiasm and support from the lay people in these churches. I
attended two meetings of a deanery clericus, a book club, two meetings of a
woman's guild, celebrated house Eucharists in the homes of people from four different
parishes, led a quiet day, taught a class at Texas Christian University, had lunch
with a number of clergy, including a group of clergywomen from Dallas, made several
presentations during the week or on Sunday mornings, and met with many people
over meals. One woman I had lunch with has experienced a call to priesthood.
She told me that our visit was the first time she had ever talked with a woman
priest.

I also met with Bishop Iker. When Dr. Doug Newsom, my
scheduler, went to tell him I was coming, he indicated he wanted to meet with
me as soon as possible after I arrived. That turned out to be October 31. Someone
laughingly suggested I wear a pointy hat. Someone else replied that he would
see one on my head whether I wore it or not.

It was obvious that he was not pleased I was there, even
though I assured him I was not there to act politically but pastorally. My
impression was that he is opposed to the ordination of women because if we were
ordained soon all priests would be women. That has hardly been the experience
of the dioceses that have ordained women, however. The feeling I received was that
he sees ordination of women and homosexual persons as one and the same issue.

I read some of the Forward in Faith material about ordination
of women and found it to be very selective scripturally. It does not allow for
any cultural relativism or interpretation, nor does it admit standard Biblical
criticism into its arguments. It believes that the Christian Church is called
to maintain patriarchy. Christ is the head of the man and the man is the head
of the woman, and only a man can be the head of a church. Obedience and control
are big issues, and it doesn't take much reading between the lines to find a
great deal of fear. Bishop Iker serves on the Board of Forward in Faith.

While I was there I also attended the Fort Worth Diocesan
Convention. It was a celebration of the twentieth anniversary of the diocese
since it divided from the Diocese of Dallas. It was apparent there was to be no
discussion of any controversial items. At one point a woman from Sewanee
addressing Convention about the University of the South was stopped from
talking about the Seminary. No one would be allowed to go there from Fort Worth
anyway. Yet, there was much that was good about the Convention. It seemed to me
to have a strong mission emphasis, and perhaps that is where some of the
frustration and energy of the diocese is going- into good mission outreach to
their companion dioceses in Malawi and Mexico and to Food for the Poor in
Haiti.

I had gone to convention with considerable trepidation, but
again, everyone was cordial, and many were very welcoming. The fact that there were
about a half a dozen women deacons in clerical collars may have helped my reception.
I also enjoyed a warn conversation with Donna lker, the bishop's wife. I had
been praying for the bishop and his family every day, and it was good to put a
face to a name.

The report of the A045 Committee came out while I was in Fort
Worth. It was received with sadness and a sense of betrayal by those who felt they
had risked a great deal to tell what they wanted the national church to hear.
What they said was not reported, and several clergy I spoke with felt they had
gone out on a limb only to have the national church chop it off. I don't think
that most people have any idea how hard it is to be a priest in the Diocese of
Fort Worth and be loyal to the canons of the Episcopal Church. We have to find
a better way to support the clergy and laity of this diocese.

One of the recommendations of the A045 report is to have a
day of dialogue at the General Convention in 2006. First, not only would the
deputies from Fort Worth not attend-they do not go to convention Eucharists but
have their own-but no amount of talking is going to convince this group. The
fifty thousand dollars the committee recommends be used for this dialogue would
be put to better use sending in angel after angel, ministering to the clergy
and laity of the diocese who feel abandoned and on the edge of being taken out of
the Episcopal Church altogether.

My presence there, more than anything else, was a sign of hope,
of connection, that people from the Episcopal Church care about the people of
Fort Worth. Hope, healing, and empowerment was experienced by many. I was there
long enough to begin to establish significant relationships with people. I hope
that the Angel Project will continue. As long as we permit a bishop to stand in
disdain of a national canon, we need to find ways to minister to the laity and
clergy who want to be faithful to that canon.

I met many wonderful people whom I shall remember, continue
to pray for and hopefully see again someday. These are bright, articulate,
passionate and faithful women and men, who bear for all of us the tangible sign
that we are still a church that has a long way to go before women and men are
on equal footing. There are lessons for all of us in Fort Worth, lest we get
too confident that the battle has been won.

So many people I met there wanted me to know that they had
lived in other dioceses and experienced the ministry of women, or that they had
visited Episcopal churches while they were on vacation. They said that they
always got this startled reaction from people, as if they must be one of those
people who don't believe in the ordination of women. The estimate I heard several
times is that the laity is probably half in favor and half against. The people
that show up in our churches are probably at least the ones open to it. If
someone shows up at your church and says they are from the Diocese of Fort
Worth, please welcome them warmly and tell them you have heard there are some
really great people in that Diocese.

I would like to end with a note of thanks to the Caucus for
the opportunity to serve in this way, and for all the prayers said for the
Angel project. I also thank Katie Sherrod and Gayland Pool, with whom I stayed while
I was in Fort Worth. Their loving presence, which included Gayland’s
fresh-baked bread almost every day, helped keep me grounded. Their four
wonderful dogs, grandbaby, and beautiful home and gardens contributed to my
sense of being cared for even as I was caring for others.

About Me

Katie Sherrod is an independent writer, producer and commentator in Fort Worth, Texas.
She is the editor of and a contributor to "Grace & Gumption, Stories of Fort Worth Women", published by the TCU Press; and "Women of the Passion, a Journey to the Cross". Both are available at Amazon.com. She has been given many awards for her consistent advocacy of women's reproductive freedom and for her 25 years of writing about efforts to combat family violence. Her print media and broadcast awards include Best Newspaper Column, Best Radio Commentary and Best Interview/Talk Show from the Dallas Press Club, and the Exceptional Media Merit Award from the National Women's Political Caucus. She holds the Associated Press Managing Editors Award for feature writing, and the Texas Headliners Award for investigative reporting.
She was inducted into the Texas Women's Hall of Fame in 1987 for outstanding contributions in the field of communications, named one of Fort Worth's Outstanding Women in 1988 and Texas Woman of the Year in 1989.
She is married to the Rev. Gayland Pool. She has a daughter and two amazing grandsons.